Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> I just ran a quick test with 4 concurrent scans on a dual-core system,
>> and it looks like we do "leak" buffers from the rings because they're
>> pinned at the time they would be recycled.
>
> Yeah, I noticed the same in some tests here. I think there's not a lot
> we can do about that; we don't have enough visibility into why someone
> else has the buffer pinned.
We could stash pinned buffers to some other list etc. and try them again
later. But that gets a lot more complex.
> Using a larger ring would help, by making it less probable that any
> other sync-scanning backend is so far behind as to still have the oldest
> element of our ring pinned. But if we do that we have the L2-cache-size
> effect to worry about. Is there any actual data backing up that it's
> useful to keep the ring fitting in L2, or is that just guesswork? In
> the sync-scan case the idea seems pretty bogus anyway, because the
> actual working set will be N backends' rings not just one.
Yes, I tested different ring sizes here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-05/msg00469.php
The tests above showed the effect when reading a table from OS cache. I
haven't seen direct evidence supporting Luke's claim that the ring makes
scans of tables bigger than RAM go faster with bigger I/O hardware,
because I don't have such hardware at hand. We did repeat the tests on
different hardware however, and monitored the CPU usage with vmstat at
the same time. The CPU usage was significantly lower with the patch, so
I believe that with better I/O hardware the test would become limited by
CPU and the patch would therefore make it go faster.
BTW, we've been talking about the "L2 cache effect" but we don't really
know for sure if the effect has anything to do with the L2 cache. But
whatever it is, it's real.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
